Why is artificial birth control usage so wrong?

[Vezelay]

Vezelay,

I don’t mean to be a pest, and certainly you can respond to what you want to respond to, but will you address my queries in post #62? How far do “we are church” get to go in defining doctrine? Where does the authority to do that come from?

Ah, you must have been absent that day in your class on How Church Teaching Develops. The answer to your query is “sensus fidelium,” the sense of the faithful, one of the sources of truth in Catholic theology. Dissent will prevail when the conscience and experience of good people point to a guidepost to truth that even the hierarchy must consult and ultimately accept. There are many examples but usury is the most obvious. The good people of the church knew perfectly well that there was nothing wrong with charging reasonable interest for the lending of money. The church condemned it but the people ignored the church and, finally, the church caught up to the faithful, after two centuries, especially when they realized all the money they could make. Selling indulgences, even though it paid for lovely St Peter’s, wasn’t such a good idea.
The bishops in 14 countries, in 1968, told their followers that they did not have to obey the encyclical Hum Vitae. It was clear and is clear that the faithful knew what was wrong and what was not wrong. As with usury, the church will eventually catch up with its followers on birth control. Yes, we, the users of contraceptives, are the church. The rest of you are but a handful of folks. Peace to you all.

 

[Abu]

Vezelay
the hierarchy must consult and ultimately accept.

False again.
No number of repetitions can deny truth. Those dissenting are outside of the sensus fidelium. (LG 12).

There are many examples but usury is the most obvious. The good people of the church knew perfectly well that there was nothing wrong with charging reasonable interest for the lending of money. The church condemned it but the people ignored the church and, finally, the church caught up to the faithful, after two centuries, especially when they realized all the money they could make.

False again.
In the O.T. Deuteronomy 23:20: “You may charge interest to a foreigner,” indicating that interest-taking is not presented as inherently evil or sinful. The larger ethical issue of the morality of interest-taking is not addressed in the Old Testament. Rather, interest was viewed only as a problem of social justice. The problem of commutative justice, i.e., of equivalence of value in an exchange of present for future goods, remained quite untouched (Thomas F. Divine, S.J., Interest, 10).

It took the Catholic Church, as free enterprise by Catholics developed, to define what is meant by usury. Session X of the Fifth Lateran Council (1515) gave its exact meaning: “For that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.”
Consequently, loaning money did involve loss of profit to the lender and further risk of loss from delay in returning the money loaned, which justified interest that is just and justifiable.

The Franciscan St. Bernardine of Siena (1380-1444) was perhaps the first theologian to recognize that time of use had an economic value and, at least in certain cases, might be licitly compensated. St. Antoninus (1389-1459), a Dominican of Florence, seems to have questioned whether Aristotle was correct in saying that money is naturally sterile. Money alone, he said, is sterile, but, combined with knowledge and enterprise, it is fruitful. His Summa Moralis examined commerce and banking, and prepared the way for modern notions of interest, which generally regard proper returns on loans taken with just title as fair.

Today, the term “usury” is usually reserved for taking excessive (i.e., unusually high for the economic conditions) interest on a loan because of someone’s circumstances: The greed of the lender takes unjust advantage of the weakness or ignorance of the borrower. [See *Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Our Sunday Visitor].

 

[Corki]

Ah, you must have been absent that day in your class on How Church Teaching Develops. The answer to your query is “sensus fidelium,” the sense of the faithful, one of the sources of truth in Catholic theology. Dissent will prevail when the conscience and experience of good people point to a guidepost to truth that even the hierarchy must consult and ultimately accept. There are many examples but usury is the most obvious. The good people of the church knew perfectly well that there was nothing wrong with charging reasonable interest for the lending of money. The church condemned it but the people ignored the church and, finally, the church caught up to the faithful, after two centuries, especially when they realized all the money they could make. Selling indulgences, even though it paid for lovely St Peter’s, wasn’t such a good idea.

  The bishops in 14 countries, in 1968, told their followers that they did not have to obey the encyclical Hum Vitae. It was clear and is clear that the faithful knew what was wrong and what was not wrong. As with usury, the church will eventually catch up with its followers on birth control. Yes, we, the users of contraceptives, are the church. The rest of you are but a handful of folks. Peace to you all.

Ah, you must have gone to class in one of those “progressive” schools.

That is a very twisted rendition of the meaning of sensus fidei. The Catechism has a better one (as always)

92 "The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."55

The reference in the CCC is Lumen Gentium (one of the dogmatic documents of Vatican II) which has this section on the subject (bolding mine):

1. The holy People of God shares also in Christ’s prophetic office: it spreads abroad a living witness to him, especially by a life of faith and love and by offering to God a sacrifice of praise, the fruit of lips praising his name (cf. Heb. 13:15). The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing that comes from the holy one (cf. 1 Jn. 2:20 and 27) cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei) of the whole people, when, “from the bishops to the last of the faithful”[8] they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals. By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth, the People of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God (cf. 1 Th. 2:13), the faith once for all delivered to the saints (cf. Jude 3). The People unfailingly adheres to this faith, penetrates it more deeply with right judgment, and applies it more fully in daily life.

The very fact that, even though many Bishops may have disagreed with HV in 1968, the Bishops now nearly unanimously affirm the teaching of HV, points to the fact that the sensus fidei is not working to change the Church’s doctrine on human sexaulity, including that regarding birth control. Note also that sensus fidei is the work of the Holy Spirit using obedience, not dissent, to guide the Church.

And gee, 14 Bishops conference out of the over 100 in the world. Sounds like an overwhelming majority to me. (not)

 

[choose_to_love]

Thanks for the clarification, vezelay. I will say your understanding of the sensus fidelium is quite different from mine, as has been ably summarized by corki. If application of the sensus fidelium requires the assent of all the people from the bishop to the last of the faithful, I do not see how it can apply to the teaching of the Magisterium on contraception, as, it seems obvious just from this thread, not “all” of either the bishops or the faithful are in agreement that the Church is wrong on this one. In addition, my understanding was that the sensus could not be in opposition to the authoritative teaching of the Church.

What, then, of the research that shows a large percentage of Catholics not believing in the Real Presence? Do “we the Church” get to define that as well? If not, why not? Is that a different category of defined belief, i.e., council vs. ordinary Magisterium (for purposes of the discussion)?

What about the rest of the Catholic world? You have referenced Italy, and I would suggest by extension all of Europe would fall into your example. What about the rest of the world’s faithful? What is their “sensus”? Even if it is three-quarters in favor of contraception, that’s still a long way from “all” of the faithful, let alone the bishops.

Next, if it is not “all”, but “many” or “most” who feel the Church is wrong, it seems to me that one must accept the existing teaching on both contraception and reception of the Eucharist (i.e., by rejecting the clearly defined and consistent teaching of the Church, one is outside of full Communion with Her, and should not receive). That just seems to me to be consistent - - the individual gets to apply his “primacy of conscience” personally (again, for purposes of the discussion), but must also acknowledge the (accepted?) teaching about proper disposition for reception of the Eucharist. Or do you posit that it is totally up to the communicant to determine what is appropriate? What guarantee or protection does the individual have that his judgment is correct?

 

[edwest2]

Dear Ed, you and most people who speak of the health and environmental ills of the PILL should come to realize that this is a mute point. You can go on until the cows come home about the perils of the Pill to our bodies and others risks… but this amounts to nothing.

Why? Because the Vatican says so.

Fact: even if there existed a Pill with ZERO negative health side effects and ZERO negative environmental impact - it would still be forbidden by the Church.

The essence of the Church’s Ban on contraception is rooted in highly symbolic, metaphysical and theological considerations - nothing to do with health or environment - so its neither here nor there if the PILL has shortcomings in so many areas. Its not about this, since even the PERFECT pill would still be a no-no.

God bless you and all of us!

The Church’s stance on artificial birth control is not highly symbolic, it is based on natural law and the God-given states of the male and female. That there are practical consequences to using The Pill should be relevant as well. Our neighbors, meaning non-Catholics, are reading this as well.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Here is the Time magazine cover story about The Pill from April 7, 1967. Pope Paul VI knew exactly what was coming. Notice all of the product advertising buzz words: “freedom,” “miraculous.” It will save you from “fear.”

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843551,00.html

People today need to understand one thing very clearly. The Catholic Community in the early 1960s was vibrant. The media - radio, TV and movies, reflected our values for the most part. We had great trust and respect for our government and news sources. Experts were listened to. We listened to the stranger.

God bless,
Ed

 

[StevenFrancis]

For the best answers, read the CCC and the appropriate encyclicals on the sanctity of human life as well as the theology of the body , but as a short simple answer, just look at the name! “Artificial birth control”. It is not of nature, and therefore not of God. It is man made. And further, these measures were actually devised and contrived in direct countervention of moral life and the ethics of the Church universal. There’s really no upside ABC that I’ve ever found to be true, even though I myself fell victim to their lure in my youth, and even within my marriage because I was not yet catechized.

 

[Vezelay]

For the best answers, read the CCC and the appropriate encyclicals on the sanctity of human life as well as the theology of the body , but as a short simple answer, just look at the name! “Artificial birth control”. It is not of nature, and therefore not of God. It is man made. And further, these measures were actually devised and contrived in direct countervention of moral life and the ethics of the Church universal. There’s really no upside ABC that I’ve ever found to be true, even though I myself fell victim to their lure in my youth, and even within my marriage because I was not yet catechized.

The following is a letter written by a Professor of Moral Theology at a Jesuit university:

   "Regarding the Aug 12 article 'Catholic Church, contraception coverage collide:' When the Wisconsin Catholic bishops say artificial contraception is 'gravely immoral' and opposed to church teaching, they are flat-out wrong. 
    The bishops, of course, are pastors, administrators and lobbyists, but they are not theologians.  If they were, they would know that Catholic theology considers the use of artificial contraception to  be 'a solidly probable opinion,' ie a perfectly moral choice for a Catholic.
    Some bishops outside of Wisconsin are better informed. South African Catholic Bishop Kevin Dowling knows that 47% of his people have tested positive for HIV.  Said Dowling: 'The only solution we have at the moment is condoms."
     The Catholic bishop of Maputo, Mozambique, was asked by his people on that AIDs-ravaged continient about the use of condoms.  The bishop replied,'If you are HIV positive and you have unprotected sex you have in the eyes of God committed murder. If you are HIV negative and you have unprotected sex with someone who is infected, you have, in the eyes of God, committed suicide.' He concluded:'So, my children, wearing a condom is not a sin...not wearing one is.'
     Marquette University in allowing insurance coverage for contraception is in line with these bishops and with mainstream Catholic theology. The Wisconsin bishops are out of step and uninformed. 
                             Daniel C. Maguire
                             Professor of Moral Theology 
                             Marquette University

 

[Abu]

Vezelay
Repeating McGuire: When the Wisconsin Catholic bishops say artificial contraception is ‘gravely immoral’ and opposed to church teaching, they are flat-out wrong.

Vezelay is playing at magisterium as usual. Thank God that the Christ gave us His Magisterium to teach us infallibly on faith and morals, and not Vezelay or one of his dissenters. What did Jesus of Nazareth have to say to such as these who reject His teaching? “He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Lk 10:16).

He never learns that a dissenting theologian, or anyone else, is no longer part of the sensus fidelium (*Lumen Gentium *12), having rejected the Christ. However, Vezelay has a curable malady, rejectivitis – it succumbs to reason and faith.

From historian Dr. Jeff Mirus, of Catholic Culture, April 14, 2007:
“In March, the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops approved a statement by the Committee on Doctrine which detailed the ways in which Maguire’s theological positions deviate from the Catholic Faith.

“In June of 2006, however, Maguire upped the ante by directly addressing the American bishops on Catholic sexual issues. He sent two pamphlets with a cover letter to each U.S. bishop: (1) The Moderate Roman Catholic Position on Contraception and Abortion; and, (2) A Catholic Defense of Same-Sex Marriage.

“It was to this onslaught that the bishops responded. They pointed out that Maguire is just plain wrong in his defense of abortion, contraception and homosexual acts, and they also explained the falsity of the argument Maguire uses to rationalize his dissent.”

Just good Catholic fidelity to truth which, with reason and faith, Vezelay can achieve.

 

[Corki]

The following is a letter written by a Professor of Moral Theology at a Jesuit university:

   "Regarding the Aug 12 article 'Catholic Church, contraception coverage collide:' When the Wisconsin Catholic bishops say artificial contraception is 'gravely immoral' and opposed to church teaching, they are flat-out wrong. 
                                    Daniel C. Maguire
                             Professor of Moral Theology 
                             Marquette University

“In March, the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops approved a statement by the Committee on Doctrine which detailed the ways in which Maguire’s theological positions deviate from the Catholic Faith.

“In June of 2006, however, Maguire upped the ante by directly addressing the American bishops on Catholic sexual issues. He sent two pamphlets with a cover letter to each U.S. bishop: (1) The Moderate Roman Catholic Position on Contraception and Abortion; and, (2) A Catholic Defense of Same-Sex Marriage.

“It was to this onslaught that the bishops responded. They pointed out that Maguire is just plain wrong in his defense of abortion, contraception and homosexual acts, and they also explained the falsity of the argument Maguire uses to rationalize his dissent.”

Just good Catholic fidelity to truth which, with reason and faith, Vezelay can achieve.

Hmmmmm A dissident theologian says the whole Church is wrong, including virtually all the US bishops. OR The USCCB says the dissident is wrong.

Which should we believe? Is this really hard?

 

[jilly4ski]

So Vezelay, does that mean that you and this “theologian” are calling the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) incorrect?

CCC 2399 directly calls contraception and direct sterilization morally unacceptable.
CCC 2370 calls contraception “intrinsically evil.”

The CCC, by the way, is a theological document not only written by “mere” bishops. (Who probably have more theological training than your “theologian,” who is not the magisterium).

 

[Abu]

To besides, as Trinidadians say, the CCC is approved “by virtue of my Apostolic Authority” (Pope John Paul II) in his Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, as “a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine…”

Vezelay has succumbed to the “parallel magisterium” of Karl Rahner which has infected McGuire.

 

[Vezelay]

To besides, as Trinidadians say, the CCC is approved “by virtue of my Apostolic Authority” (Pope John Paul II) in his Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, as “a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine…”

Vezelay has succumbed to the “parallel magisterium” of Karl Rahner which has infected McGuire.

Hmmmmm… I notice nobody is questioning the views of the African bishops. I don’t remember the pope silencing them. Nor did he when 18 of them requested marriage for priests. Most of them have a women already as do many priests in Italy, France and even Ireland. Remember our priests may be unmarried but they are not celibate. Alas, to our shame, some of them are “uncelibate” with young boys, molesting, raping and sodomizing them. Of course we have married priest, the episcopal ones who have come over and those in the Greek Orthodox church. We will eventually revert to optional marriage as was the case for the first half of the church’s history.

     Maguire seems to be a professer of theology in good standing at a Catholic university and he speaks for the university when he points out that that Catholic institution provides coverage for birth control in their insurance.

Don’t forget… bishops in 14 countries in the 60s told their faithful that they need not obey HumVitae and they didn’t. Benedictine scholar Fr Philip Kaufman estimated that only about 17% of Catholics were told that they had to follow HV. Catholic families are of normal size. Most Catholics use birth control. Are all these bishops, priests and members of the Body of Christ all wrong? We receive the Eucharist with clear conscience. We are the church and will continue to be so. Our leaders will catch up with the sensus fidelium eventually as they have in the past. We are patient.

 

[Corki]

Hmmmmm… I notice nobody is questioning the views of the African bishops. I don’t remember the pope silencing them. Nor did he when 18 of them requested marriage for priests. Of course we have married priest, the episcopal ones who have come over and those in the Greek Orthodox church. We will eventually revert to optional marriage as was the case for the first half of the church’s history.

     Maguire seems to be a professer of theology in good standing at a Catholic university and he speaks for the university when he points out that that Catholic institution provides coverage for birth control in their insurance.

Don’t forget… bishops in 14 countries in the 60s told their faithful that they need not obey HumVitae and they didn’t. Benedictine scholar Fr Philip Kaufman estimated that only about 17% of Catholics were told that they had to follow HV.

There’s a seperate thread here on CAF about Bishop Dowling. He is not entirely in good standing. His own bishops conference released, just this month, a statement which publicly corrected him. A public correction is a pretty stong discipline for a bishop. Most actions against bishops are not made public.

As for Maguire, he is a professor of religious ethics not theology. He himself published in 2002 his letter refusing to sign the required mandatum. By not signing, he took himself out of the ranks of theology professors “in good standing”.

As for the 60’s, 14 out of over 100 bishops’ conferences is not a huge number. It is patently false that only 17% of Catholics were told they had to follow HV. 100% of Catholics were told they had to follow HV; it’s possible that only 17% had the teaching reinforced by their bishops’ conference but the role bishop conferences has changed quite a bit since VII and most were not issuing authoritative teaching documents back then.

Yes, the ordination of married priests is an open discussion. The fact that there has not been a wholesale change does not mean the Church isn’t listening. She is listening;; the Church has ordained more married men in recent years. The jury is still out whether more married priests would be good for the Church at this time. The discussion is ongoing.

But again 18 African bishops requesting something is not a huge groundswell of support. Did you know that just in South Africa, there are over 40 bishops. 18 is a fraction of the total African bishops, let alone a portion of all the bishops world-wide.

 

[jilly4ski]

Hmmmmm… I notice nobody is questioning the views of the African bishops. I don’t remember the pope silencing them. Nor did he when 18 of them requested marriage for priests. Most of them have a women already as do many priests in Italy, France and even Ireland. Remember our priests may be unmarried but they are not celibate. Alas, to our shame, some of them are “uncelibate” with young boys, molesting, raping and sodomizing them. Of course we have married priest, the episcopal ones who have come over and those in the Greek Orthodox church. We will eventually revert to optional marriage as was the case for the first half of the church’s history.

     Maguire seems to be a professer of theology in good standing at a Catholic university and he speaks for the university when he points out that that Catholic institution provides coverage for birth control in their insurance.

Don’t forget… bishops in 14 countries in the 60s told their faithful that they need not obey HumVitae and they didn’t. Benedictine scholar Fr Philip Kaufman estimated that only about 17% of Catholics were told that they had to follow HV. Catholic families are of normal size. Most Catholics use birth control. Are all these bishops, priests and members of the Body of Christ all wrong? We receive the Eucharist with clear conscience. We are the church and will continue to be so. Our leaders will catch up with the sensus fidelium eventually as they have in the past. We are patient.

And we keep noticing that you won’t answer the question.

Not to mention you never cite any of these “facts” which you state.

And did you know that most African bishops oppose the use of condoms. Do you know any of these priests personally to know that they are not keeping their vows? Not to mention I don’t understand what that has anything to do with your argument. So you say we should listen to the bishops you say we should listen to (ie the ones who are not in unity with Rome), but not the bishops that we say you should listen to (the ones that are in line with every official authoritative document).

Oh btw, your numbers are misleading. you say that in the 60’s bishops in 14 countries say the people should not follow HV, but you didn’t say which bishops. There is not one bishop per country but lots of bishops. So how many of these bishops in each country defied Rome? One, two… Either way it is irrelevant since you say bishops don’t need to listened too and even if we should listen to bishops the majority of Catholics do it so it must be ok.

 

[Vezelay]

As for Maguire, he is a professor of religious ethics not theology. He himself published in 2002 his letter refusing to sign the required mandatum. By not signing, he took himself out of the ranks of theology professors “in good standing”.

Well, just a short time ago when Maguire called for the resignation of the pope over the coverup of child molestation and refusal to report such crimes to the authorities, Marquette officially declared that it disagreed with Maguire’s views but that it defended his right, “both as a private citizen and as a professor of theology” to express his opinions. A matter of weeks ago… he was, according to university authorities, a professor of theology. But it’s not his views on contraception that matter, it is the behavior of the people of God. We use birth control and we receive the Eucharist. The papal commission was right in 1966. This is the way things are.

 

[edwest2]

As for Maguire, he is a professor of religious ethics not theology. He himself published in 2002 his letter refusing to sign the required mandatum. By not signing, he took himself out of the ranks of theology professors “in good standing”.

Well, just a short time ago when Maguire called for the resignation of the pope over the coverup of child molestation and refusal to report such crimes to the authorities, Marquette officially declared that it disagreed with Maguire’s views but that it defended his right, “both as a private citizen and as a professor of theology” to express his opinions. A matter of weeks ago… he was, according to university authorities, a professor of theology. But it’s not his views on contraception that matter, it is the behavior of the people of God. We use birth control and we receive the Eucharist. The papal commission was right in 1966. This is the way things are.

The teachings of the Catholic Church do not change according to the actions of the people.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[Abu]

The dissenters reject Christ and set themselves up against Him and His Church. Just as Her dogma and doctrine are never contradictory as She is Christ’s Church, the dissenters always fantasize that they will be able to trump Christ. They maul His teaching and His Church and never listen to Him –that the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church – that means the devil’s mates seen here who rant and rave.

From historian Dr. Jeff Mirus, of Catholic Culture, April 14, 2007:
The Rationalization of Dissent
"Maguire’s argument is that there are multiple magisteria (teaching authorities) in Catholicism. The bishops are one magisterium, another is the wisdom of the faithful (sensus fidelium), and a third is the wisdom of theologians. For Maguire, nothing is settled unless all the magisteria agree. While this argument is very common among those who wish to justify their dissent from what everyone else invariably identifies as official Catholic teaching, it fails because it distinguishes neither the sources of human wisdom from Revelation, nor Revelation from the Magisterium. There are indeed many potential sources of wisdom in the Church, and there are even two sources of Revelation (Scripture and Tradition), but there is only one Magisterium, or teaching authority.

"These distinctions are critical to Catholic thought. At the end of the day, what separates Catholicism from every other religion is that Catholics claim to have a specific, divinely-guaranteed teaching authority which can decide which statements about faith and morals are consistent with what God Himself has revealed, and which are not. In contrast, Maguire (along with most dissenting theologians) holds that as long as one can find significant disagreement among Catholics, including Catholic theologians, a teaching cannot be settled. The only things we can be certain of are the things on which we all agree.

“But even this argument, slanted so favorably toward those who continually cry non serviam instead of fiat, is not enough for Maguire (or for many like him). He reveals his own deeper prejudices in his first pamphlet by describing the two available Catholic positions on contraception and abortion as follows. First, there is the “extremely conservative view” held by conservative theologians, the pope and the bishops. Second, there is the “moderate and sensible view” held by other theologians who morally approve of contraception and abortion. The not-so-subtle nuance here is that only those who agree with Maguire are “sensible”, making Maguire and his fellow dissenters pretty much the sole magisterium.”

 

[Vezelay]

The teachings of the Catholic Church do not change according to the actions of the people.

Well, they certainly have in the past. Why would they not in the future?

 

[Abu]

Another failed mantra used by dissenters like Vezelay is that doctrine has changed – they never can provide any evidence but parrot the soporific versus the infallible doctrine against contraception. More facts on his dissenter Maguire.

**The Demise of Marquette as Catholic
From historian Dr. Jeff Mirus, of Catholic Culture, April 14, 2007:
A Much Larger Problem **
“That those with significant intellectual gifts should be tempted by pride is only to be expected, for Lucifer knows where to attack each of us. The more difficult question is how those who claim to be Catholic theologians can so often serve as fountains of unCatholic ideas with prolonged impunity. As I am fond of pointing out, the first answer to this question is cultural. We live in a culture which lionizes rebellion against all traditions and standards, including the hard-won intellectual achievements of our own civilization. Even if the hierarchy of the Church were not inevitably infected by this same weakness, it would be difficult to correct the problem everywhere at once.

“In this context, Maguire’s challenge to the bishops is understandable. First, it was frequently possible in the late twentieth century to intimidate bishops simply by claiming to represent a more “moderate and sensible” position. Thankfully, this is less true now and, in any case, the USCCB Doctrine Committee has done its job. Second, Maguire well knows that the chance of his suffering in any professional or personal way from his challenge is essentially nil. The cases of direct action against wayward theologians at any hierarchical level are few and far between, and Maguire knows he is fairly well-protected at Marquette.

“Not long ago a reader criticized me for mentioning how low the Society of Jesus has fallen but Marquette is just one more unfortunate example of a self-proclaimed “Catholic, Jesuit University” (see Marquette’s web site). If you take the time to read the statement of Marquette’s President, Rev. Robert Wild, SJ, on what it means to be “Catholic and Jesuit” you will learn, quite literally, that it means essentially nothing. Wild’s chief claim to Catholicity is that Marquette is not afraid to allow religion into the discussion as many secular universities are. His only citation from John Paul II’s great charter for Catholic universities, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, is used to show the importance of academic freedom, without indicating at all how this is to be understood. Finally, his chief means of clarifying what Marquette means by academic freedom is to recount the fact that Thomas Aquinas was once in bad odor with certain bishops.”